GR 167003; (October, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167003 ; October 23, 2006
PANFILO A. ABAIGAR, petitioner, vs. JESUS A. ABAIGAR, respondent.
FACTS
Petitioner Panfilo Abaigar filed a forcible entry complaint against his brother, respondent Jesus Abaigar, before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) in Calbiga, Samar. The MCTC ruled in favor of Panfilo. On appeal, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) reversed the MCTC, declaring Jesus the owner and possessor of half the disputed property and ordering Panfilo to pay damages. Panfilo then filed a Petition for Review with the Court of Appeals (CA) to challenge the RTC decision.
The CA dismissed the petition outright because the required certification against forum shopping was signed only by Panfilo’s counsel, not by Panfilo himself. Panfilo moved for reconsideration, explaining he had already left for the United States before the petition was filed, making it physically impossible for him to personally sign the certification within the reglementary period. He pleaded for a relaxation of the rule in the interest of substantial justice, asserting he had a meritorious case.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the petition for review due to a defective certification against forum shopping signed only by counsel, and whether a relaxation of this procedural rule is warranted under the circumstances.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the CA’s dismissal. The Court reiterated that under Sections 2 and 3, Rule 42 and Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, the certification against forum shopping must be signed by the principal party, not merely by counsel. This is because the party is in the best position to know whether he has initiated similar actions. A certification signed only by counsel is defective and constitutes a valid cause for dismissal.
While the Court acknowledged precedents where the rule was relaxed for compelling reasons—such as when a party was residing abroad, making personal compliance physically impossible within the appeal period—it found no such justification here. The Court examined the records and determined that Panfilo failed to specify compelling circumstances or convincingly demonstrate that his case was so meritorious as to override the procedural lapse. The substantive facts, including a prior RTC decision declaring respondent as an owner-possessor, did not present a compelling case for substantial justice to warrant setting aside the technical rule. Thus, strict compliance was upheld.